Was the crown despotic towards the North American colonies, or just misguided?

P sure "the crown" means the British empire as a whole in this context Nigel. Do try to keep up with the Americans.

>bunch of slave owners rebel because the government's action hurt their profit margin
>century later
>descendants of those slave owners whine when another bunch of slave owners rebel when the government's actions threatens their profit margin

>century later
>young descendants of slaves and slave owners rebel against government because its actions hurt their feelings
How the world has progressed

>be a British soldier
>crowd of 300/400 men
>behaving as if they could attack you any moment
>they shout "fire" trying to make you lose your temper
>you and you boys finally fire
>5 people die
>OMG EVIL BRITISH
>WE DINDU NUFFIN
>REVOLUTION NOW

your boys*

>be British
>try to protest new tax
>get shot by police
>god bless the queen

The resemblance is eerie

>be a """""patriot"""""
>your country has won the war (that was partly started by you) and now needs money
>start behaving like a total savage
>provoke soldiers with loaded guns
>"WHY DID YOU SHOOT REEEEEEE"
>make your own country while calling yourself a """""patriot"""""

>be you
>be unable to comprehend people rejecting heavy handed policing policies despite your own likely condemnation of heavy handed policing policies in the present day
Protesters "provoked" men with loaded guns pretty constantly in the past year
Last time I checked the crowd ended up shooting first, not the armed men

>heavy handed policing policy
>basically just marked up prices in the early days

it was neither despotic or misguided, in fact it was eminently reasonable, it simplyy underestimated the colonists bloody minded arrogance and avarice.

you miss the part where they only fired after one of them was knocked down by thrown cobblestone, and several aimed high (two of the casualties were caused by the same shot)

when tried - by a court largely stacked with anti british 'patriots' - only one was found guilty of manslaughter, the others were acquitted on the basis of self defense, the one convicted was convicted because he was believed to have aimed his musket before firing

It's not so much that the Crown was misguided, it was more that they were just too big. They couldn't make proper decisions in a timely manner, and it caused a ripple in trust, or "need" for some government who was too far away.

>protesters say mean words to you
>shoot them
???

>protestors are advised to leave
>protestors break the NAP
>surprised when the other side tries to scare them off

it wasnt heavy handed policing, hell the 'boston massacre' started when a soldier cuffed a unruly apprentice for harrassing the officer over a unpaid bill, it transpired that the officer had in fact already settled the bill to the certain knowledge of the apprentice in question.

so essentially idiot starts fight with soldiers, crowd gathers and acts as mobs do, soldiers show great restraint until they reach a point where their lives were actually threatened, soldiers fire a single ragged volley to disperse the crowd.

these were british redcoats, there is little doubt that had more than self defense been on their mind they coould have killed many more than actually died

>they totally could've killed more if they wanted to
>despite the fact that if the mob "really wanted to" it could bury them under a press of bodies

I get that you want to be proud and nationalistic but you're seriously implying the average American cop has more self restraint than the average British red coat, and then pretending it's a good thing

The reality is that the American Colonies were among the lowest taxed of any colony under British rule. In fact, the Boston Tea Party was the result of the British LOWERING taxes on tea, resulting in smugglers losing a part of their livelihoods. The American Revolution came about from a desire for independence.

This. The English Civil War was really the first failed attempt at establishing a European republic, but the American Revolution was truly the first Republic established in the Western world based on Enlightenment ideals, with France, Switzerland and others following.

While everything else was 4 times the price because you couldn't trade with other places but English colonies and things like forges were banned for the first 80 years

T. Mohhamed al britani III

>you're seriously implying the average American cop has more self restraint than the average British red coat, and then pretending it's a good thing

less self restraint not more, the subsequent trial despite being entirely composed of 'patriots' found that the soldiers had acted in self defense and that the majority had actually avoided firing directly into the crowd. they fired once and once only and only after one of their number had been wounded by a thrown stone. this was despite spending 45 minutes with the crowd baying for blood and pelting them with abuse and produce, with respect the national guard showed far less restraint at kent state,

american police on the other seem to make a habit of shooting unarmed civilians with little or no provocation

The South was a hotbed of loyalism. Nice try.

Yes but no more than other colonies and even its own proper british commoners (not even most british had political representation back then)
I guess sperging about muh taxes and muh gunz is embedded on the murrican gene

t. Pedro Alvarado Ramirez Smith

>get more land
>subjects want to settle new land
>"No"

>tfw you will never live in a 100% ethnically English Imperial Federation spanning the globe
>tfw you will always be an american with no cultural identity/spirit

American culture IS anti-culture
Its why globalism is so intertwinned with american pop culture and american multinationals

Any "culture" that applies to a population greater than 200 is a pleseant fiction cooked up for propaganda purposes. Human beings don't participate in interpersonal interactions on these convenient "National" scales. This nonsense that all Americans share any identifiable cultural trait is very very easily disproven.

China has an humonguous population of over 90% han chinese and a pretty identifiable culture (unlike India which is divided by a fuckton of religions and ethnicities)

China is extremely diverse. People from difference provinces can't understand each other. Don't listen to Alt Right dweebs China is the original cultural melting pot.

our argument seems to assume that I only interact with 200 people, all of whom only interact with me and the rest of my 200, with no contact outside the group. Otherwise, cultural memes, especially dank ones, will pass around from "group" to "group" and form a common culture.

The American Revolution was inevitable. The 13 Colonies were even at that time the strongest coalition in the new world, and they knew they could fight and win a war for independence with Britain who had to fight a war all the way across the Atlantic.

All the events leading up to it were just typical political posturing to convince Americans to go along with it.

The founding fathers were incredibly bright individuals who saw an opportunity, and seized it.

When a meme or any cultural artifact passes between groups that does not make the two groups a monolithic culture. Instead, there is a sort of cultural osmosis. For example when some image macro you might consider to be high political satire a gay furry kid might tattoo on his scrotum and call it Alt Right. You are not Alt Right in this thought experiment, you have simply performed a cultural transaction with an outside culture.

They have many ethnicities, but the hans are like 95%
Manchus, mongols, uyghurs, tibetans cantonese, etc don't even amount to 5% combined

The American revolution was a conservative movemen. They just wanted to restore the rights and liberty they enjoyed when Britain largely ignored them and let them be autonomous. Unfortunately Britain tried to take a more active role when the Colonies needed their help the least.

> "Thanks for kicking out the French, we'll handle things on our own".

india does indeed have a fuckton of ethnicities but good news is most ethnicities identify with the broader indian ciivilization. Also dharmic religions still make about 80% of population.

India is indeed more diverse than china, but its not africa diverse where there is literally no connecting bond and the different ethnicities actually lived without any contact with others. The different ethnicities had millenia of cultural contact, common religion, identify with a common history and have a solid nationalist identity now.

nobody is born evil, naermo, only misguide

The king was targeted in patriot arguments because they held that Parliament had never held legitimate authority over the Colonies to begin with, since the colonial charters were from the King.
Loyalty to the king and accepting parliamentary authority were going to come hand in hand, so in order to drum up support for the rejection of parliamentary authority they had to argue against the King.

I think.

The colonists originally didn't even want to sever ties with the monarchy until Thomas Paine convinced them. They just wanted more special treatment and sperged about MUH TAXES despite the fact that they were largely left alone until their chimpouts against the French and Indians required the Crown to spend a bunch of money bailing them out, and the British imposed taxes to recoup some of their enormous losses

>you have to interact with someone personally for there to be a common culture between you two